Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns MFN/provisional/agreement/preferential/general rates, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., only 2026 data, no historical years), potential errors, or whether it is read-only (though 'Search' implies read-only). It also includes an unclear 'dataset optional' phrase that does not map to the schema parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with two clear sentences and a short fragment. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes return value information. The 'dataset optional' fragment is a minor distraction and could be removed for clarity, but overall the structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple query with keyword and limit, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core purpose and return types, but it does not mention any nuances such as the fact that it only covers 2026 or that results might be limited by the 'limit' parameter. The 'dataset optional' discrepancy also suggests a possible mismatch between the description and the actual schema, leaving some ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'keyword' parameter as 'HS code or keyword', but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Additionally, the description mentions 'dataset optional' which does not correspond to any parameter in the schema, creating confusion. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search'), the specific resource ('China 2026 import tariff schedule'), and the search criteria ('by HS code or keyword'). It also lists the types of rates returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_dualuse or query_prohibited, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for tariff queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance like 'use this for tariff rate lookups' or 'do not use for other trade restrictions.' The name and resource make the purpose clear, but explicit usage context is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.